Contre toute oppression. Analyse comparée des tentatives de décloisonnement des luttes d’émancipation humaine et de la cause animale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une analyse comparée de trois tentatives de décloisonnement des luttes d’émancipation humaine et de la cause animale et s’interroge sur les conditions de possibilité de ces formalisations intellectuelles initiées dans les pays de culture anglophone. Il commence par revenir sur les différentes configurations qui ont vu l’émergence de ces déclinaisons particulières du porte-parolat des animaux et sur les auteurs et penseurs qui les ont élaborées. La comparaison synchronique permet de montrer que ces acteurs occupent, au moment où ils formulent ces critiques syncrétiques, des positions dominées dans le champ intellectuel. Ces conceptions répondent donc toujours à un double enjeu : l’affirmation de positions hétérodoxes dans leurs champs d’appartenance et la pérennisation d’une entreprise de représentation hérétique au sein de l’espace de concurrence pour la prise de parole au nom des animaux.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".